The commoners thread: Discussing Ultima's "On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System"

[Georredannea15]

But, this R>F logic departs from the objectively accepted system and leads to a subjective view by including philosophical concepts and therefore leads to a wrong path with differences of opinion. In short, it turns into CSAP

 

[Ikelaggan]

I thought CSAP has math at High 1-B at peak.

Tiering System

This page is crucial in order to provide a clear understanding on the tiers and terminologies related to them as spoken of by the community. If you're new to the site or powerscaling in-general, please take care to read through all of the relevant information. It should be noted that sometimes...

character-stats-and-profiles.fandom.com

They still use math for layers (in the comments), it's just their 1-A stops using geometric differences and more definitional differences

 

[Shadyboi0]

They kept High 2-A and Tenatons? Thats cool.

 

[Zer00Negativo]

you are now discovering something that has been used for years on the Liber proelis wiki

 

[Shadyboi0]

you are now discovering something that has been used for years on the Liber proelis wiki

We used to have those.

 

[Maskofthedragon]

Anything past High 3A continues to be a bunch of unquantifiable nonsense that will never be settled!

 

[Iiliminal]

goku solos

 

[Faisal]

Even if you are r>f you don't really trancend and not bound by dimension like us.. even if we are have qualitive superior to fiction I still 3d person. Then with that in mind we couldn't possibly understand higher dimension in that fiction. That would make it become one character couldn't defeat other and it will make it inconclusive match(even though 1a supposed to be superior than 1b)

 

[Greatsage13th]

Even if you are r>f you don't really trancend and not bound by dimension like us.. even if we are have qualitive superior to fiction I still 3d person. Then with that in mind we couldn't possibly understand higher dimension in that fiction. That would make it become one character couldn't defeat other and it will make it inconclusive match(even though 1a supposed to be superior than 1b)

Come again?

 

[Phoenks]

Ultima pushing the much better tiering system, hopefully he doesn't get stonewalled by DT!

 

[Georredannea15]

Ultima pushing the much better tiering system, hopefully he doesn't get stonewalled by DT!

Nah, A system much more full of assumptions and doubts. He makes his system based on objective information based more on subjective philosophical interpretation, and this... is so unhealthy.

And, even if the thread is not rejected, it is still accepted with more determining factors and objective information rather than its current state. In short, it becomes more difficult.

 

[ÆONS]

Ultima pushing the much better tiering system, hopefully he doesn't get stonewalled by DT!

TBH he does sort of bring up a good point that fiction is not the same as nothingness although functionally they seem similar.

Besides that, I have yet to see any compelling argument against Ultima's proposal.

 

[Greatsage13th]

Ultima pushing the much better tiering system, hopefully he doesn't get stonewalled by DT!

If Dt acts like pain who stonewalled the JTTW CRT to the point of stagnation. We'll likely be denied this masterpiece.

 

[ÆONS]

If Dt acts like pain who stonewalled the JTTW CRT to the point of stagnation. We'll likely be denied this masterpiece.

Lets just give DT a chance to speak out. It doesn't look like he had responded to the OP in full quite yet.

 

[Georredannea15]

TBH he does sort of bring up a good point that fiction is not the same as nothingness although functionally they seem similar.

Besides that, I have yet to see any compelling argument against Ultima's proposal.

Personally, since Ultima cannot base its logic on any basis, this logic remains in the air and is very unsupported. Even what he does, he hypothetically adds dimensions that are not shown in the verse and do not exist. He claims that this is the quantitative and qualitative difference, but he goes beyond the boundaries of the verse.

 

[Hasty12345]

I think separating qualitative and quantitative differences is good

 

[Georredannea15]

Lets just give DT a chance to speak out. It doesn't look like he had responded to the OP in full quite yet.

Well, there is a question and answer session between them right now, but the main problems of DT are the reasons i wrote above(for now)... Of course, there is more, i think they will talk about all of these later and it will be a discussion that will last month

 

[Vietthai96]

Nah, A system much more full of assumptions and doubts. He makes his system based on objective information based more on subjective philosophical interpretation, and this... is so unhealthy.

And, even if the thread is not rejected, it is still accepted with more determining factors and objective information rather than its current state. In short, it becomes more difficult.

Power scaling as a whole is..............subjective and unhealthy, so the current system isn't any better

 

[Phoenks]

Nah, A system much more full of assumptions and doubts. He makes his system based on objective information based more on subjective philosophical interpretation, and this... is so unhealthy.

And, even if the thread is not rejected, it is still accepted with more determining factors and objective information rather than its current state. In short, it becomes more difficult.

What assumptions and doubts are you concerned about?

Understandably, Mathematics are lot more rigid and objective, and thus more easy to quantify. But R>F is more than likely going to have some equally firm standards attached to it to remove doubt. As will other forms of tiering.

Also, I should clarify that more "objective" doesn't mean it's a better or more accurate system of measuring fictional characters. For example, taking mathematics and trying to apply it to verses like Cthulhu Mythos which are like objectively beyond what math can quantify isn't a really good way to go about powerscaling a verse like that IMO.

 

[Georredannea15]

Power scaling as a whole is..............subjective and unhealthy, so the current system isn't any better

At least there is a system, such as mathematics, that is based on objective information that everyone accepts as the same globally. That's why there is no confusion

We can easily say that this system is healthier than subjective philosophical thoughts and assumptions that have no basis. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong in our current system, but at least there are fewer wrongs than the system that was tried, and the system we have now is extremely consistent and well-founded.

 

[Phoenks]

TBH he does sort of bring up a good point that fiction is not the same as nothingness although functionally they seem similar.

Fiction can indeed be equivalated to being nothingness.

Fiction as we view it can only exist in thought alone, as a fully abstract thing we're capable of changing on a whim. Thought can't be quantified at all in comparison to what's real to us. Things like dimensions still exist in reality, even down to 0-D points and such.

Yet, fiction compared to 0-D points is simply still not quantifiable at all. It has no quantifiability in comparison to reality, and thus can be considered to be nothing in comparison.

 

[Hasty12345]

but this system isn't moving away from math... it's simply redefining where it sits within the system

At least there is a system, such as mathematics, that is based on objective information that everyone accepts as the same globally. That's why there is no confusion

We can easily say that this system is healthier than subjective philosophical thoughts and assumptions that have no basis. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong in our current system, but at least there are fewer wrongs than the system that was tried, and the system we have now is extremely consistent and well-founded.

 

[Georredannea15]

What assumptions and doubts are you concerned about?

Understandably, Mathematics are lot more rigid and objective, and thus more easy to quantify. But R>F is more than likely going to have some equally firm standards attached to it to remove doubt. As will other forms of tiering.

What you said nuked what you already said here, man. This minimizes the rate of inaccuracy.

Also, I should clarify that more "objective" doesn't mean it's a better or more accurate system of measuring fictional characters. For example, taking mathematics and trying to apply it to verses like Cthulhu Mythos which are like objectively beyond what math can quantify isn't a really good way to go about powerscaling a verse like that IMO.

So can I ask why you think this way? What is it that moves you away from the globally accepted system, and its basis?

 

[ElajRuengies]

I don't care about anything that can't be measured in joules so whatever.

 

[Georredannea15]

but this system isn't moving away from math... it's simply redefining where it sits within the system

This system is more like "only the number 2 is shown in the verse, but I should default to all in the quality" and fails to base it on that. Thats the problem.

Even if the logic is correct, it remains in the air when you cannot base it on it.

 

[Vietthai96]

At least there is a system, such as mathematics, that is based on objective information that everyone accepts as the same globally. That's why there is no confusion

Math isn't objective either, anything beyond infinity is just a mathematical concepts, ideas, theories that no different than philosophical thoughts. Theories being revised all days so no, they aren't objective

 

[Hasty12345]

This system is more like "only the number 2 is shown in the verse, but I should default to all in the quality" and fails to base it on that. Thats the problem.

Even if the logic is correct, it remains in the air when you cannot base it on it.

I think Ultima explains adequately that it doesn't work to have a character be "+1 dimensions" when the character doesn't belong to the category of dimensions but is still superior.

 

[Phoenks]

What you said nuked what you already said here, man. This minimizes the rate of inaccuracy.

This completely depends on what you believe is inaccurate.

Do you believe something is inaccurate because it doesn't align with the tiering system we have in place? If so, mathematical/dimensional systems are better with having more consistent ratings across the board on the site, due to its less flexible nature. I do agree there.

Do you believe something is inaccurate because it doesn't align with how a verse should realistically be scaled? If so, the Ultima suggested system is the best for attempting to accurately quantify most verses in a way that's more fair to the content contained within them. Space, dimensionality, and such are things that become quickly irrelevant to verses with metaphysical concepts and ideas.

It basically comes down to what you personally think is more important. A more consistent tiering system, or a more encompassing tiering system.

So can I ask why you think this way? What is it that moves you away from the globally accepted system, and its basis?

I thought I explained it pretty simply there. I think it's pretty reasonable for me to look at verses that literally spell out "I'm beyond math, dimensional hierarchies, logic, etc" and then say that us trying to quantify them within dimensionality is a pretty dumb thing to do if you're trying to be a reasonable power scaler, and not just trying to maintain consistency within a given tiering system.

 

[Georredannea15]

Math isn't objective either, anything beyond infinity is just a mathematical concepts, ideas, theories that no different than philosophical thoughts

Even though "1+1=2" is accepted by everyone globally, it came from philosophy, right? In fact, philosophy is the ancestor of almost all branches of science, but it is not based on any proven basis, it is personal and can be interpreted differently by everyone, which causes trouble. That's why thinkers generally have different mindsets, and a solid foundation is needed to gather these different mindsets on a common ground. If this doesn't exist, these can't go much further than just "logical but unsupported" arguments. This is how the first steps of science took place

For example, there is an apple, a pencil and a potato in front of us and we are asked "one of them is different from the others, which one do you think is it?" When asked;

Person A can say "the pen is different because the others are fruits", which is logical and true, while person B can say "I think the potato is different because the apple and the pen came from a tree, but potato is not", which is also true and logical.

In this case, if you cannot base these logics on a solid basis, many different views like this will emerge. First of all, you need to put this into a system, unless this happens, it is very difficult.

Ultima made this philosophy, but could not put it into a solid system, and this resulted in differences of opinion, assumptions and gaps in the system.

 

[Ikelaggan]

Math isn't objective either, anything beyond infinity is just a mathematical concepts, ideas, theories that no different than philosophical thoughts. Theories being revised all days so no, they aren't objective

That is sorta right, there's only two branches of representations that fall under concrete being physical: actions and models, and Contextual: applying math to real world situations. While most of anything tier 2 and onwards objectively uses the latter of verbal and symbolic representations of Mathematics

 

[Georredannea15]

This completely depends on what you believe is inaccurate.

Do you believe something is inaccurate because it doesn't align with the tiering system we have in place? If so, mathematical/dimensional systems are better with having more consistent ratings across the board on the site, due to its less flexible nature. I do agree there.

Do you believe something is inaccurate because it doesn't align with how a verse should realistically be scaled? If so, the Ultima suggested system is the best for attempting to accurately quantify most verses in a way that's more fair to the content contained within them. Space, dimensionality, and such are things that become quickly irrelevant to verses with metaphysical concepts and ideas.

But, a concept, a structure of thought or any metaphysical element is still limited only to the dimension shown in the verse.


For example, imagine a verse and a cosmology where only the 5th dimension exists, in this cosmology you can imagine, visualize and model any concept, any theoretical dimension (i.e. higher dimensions) in your collective consciousness. You can think of 1000D in this verse, but you can only think and interpret the 1000D you think of by modeling it within the boundaries of the 5th dimension, in the 5th dimension. This is true for any higher dimension (theoretical dimensions).

Even if you consider and model 180017016D, the concept you are considering is actually still 5 dimensional, you will be modeling 180017016D only in the 5th dimension and it will still be 5 dimensional.

The best example of this is that although we humans cannot physically perceive the 4-dimensional cube in any way, when we imagine it in our minds and think philosophically, we still model the 4-dimensional cube in the 3rd dimension. (in borders of the 3rd dimension)


Therefore, even such metaphysical and philosophical terms are limited only to the dimensionality shown in the verse.

It basically comes down to what you personally think is more important. A more consistent tiering system, or a more encompassing tiering system.


I thought I explained it pretty simply there. I think it's pretty reasonable for me to look at verses that literally spell out "I'm beyond math, dimensional hierarchies, logic, etc" and then say that us trying to quantify them within dimensionality is a pretty dumb thing to do if you're trying to be a reasonable power scaler, and not just trying to maintain consistency within a given tiering system.

Even when you say "beyond mathematics", you are actually still including mathematics. But, you only cover the mathematics shown in the verse, when you say "I am beyond all concepts of dimensions", you also include all theoretical dimensions, but even so, even the thought structure of these theoretical dimensions is limited only to the dimensionality shown in the verse (I have already mentioned it more or less above)

So these give +1 on current standards and minimize NLF. "Everything is taken within the scope of what the verse shows and doesn't go beyond the verse."

 

[Flowman777]

Does anyone have any good counterpoints to these points from DontTalkDT? I feel they make good points about how metafiction-fiction and dimensionality aren't inherently superior to one another.

R>F equalizing to dimensional jumps is no true correspondence, obviously. Technically, R>F and dimensional tiering should be on two separate power axis. Both being 5D and seeing a universe as fiction are being infinitely superior to it, but without feats neither should be able to affect the other. The 5D character can't punch something more real than it and the R>F character doesn't cover 5D space as part of the cosmology it transcends. I will say that, as usual, I consider assumptions that R>F should just be able to cover the dimensions because in real life dimensions don't matter for a writer as overextrapolation. It's too much enforcing our views on fictional verses.
1 level of infinity for R>F is a rough equalization, but I think it works better than value one of the several axis of being transcendent of something infinitely above the others.

from here, and

To B): Well, the thing is I would argue they are not comparable, not in the way you propose either.
If you ask me what the true state of things is, then I believe that there could be 100D characters that can't interact with some that sees the 3D universe as fiction, while there are also characters that see the universe as fiction and whose plot manipulation powers don't extend to higher D space at all, making the two beings unable to fight each other. And neither may be able to do anything against someone transdual and vice versa.
The first character basically has 100 dimension levels, 0 R>F levels and 0 transduality levels, while the second one has 3 dimension levels, 1 R>F levels and 0 transduality levels and the third has 3 dimension levels, 0 R>F levels and 1 transduality levels. And technically you can not put all of them on a single scale to compare their powers.
Problem is, that is absolutely garbage for a vs-community. It makes indexing convoluted and high tier characters couldn't fight each other. So instead we just sum up all the different levels of the characters and call the sum their "levels of infinity" and say that things which are equally infinite can fight each other.

from here.

 

[StekFence]

Does anyone have any good counterpoints to these points from DontTalkDT? I feel they make good points about how metafiction-fiction and dimensionality aren't inherently superior to one another.

from here, and

from here.

I think that a R/F layer should be tiered higher than any dimensional difference, because it trivializes the base existence more.

Say you had a 4D universe, and someone who saw it as fiction. They would view it as not existing in reality. It would be so far removed from being material to them, that it exists as merely an abstraction at most. Meanwhile, that
same 4D universe would still be material to a 5d or 183934747d being, just minutely so.

 

[StekFence]

Although if we are gonna talk about interaction, if we assumed that the premise of R/F layers being superior to dimensional jumps is true, then you could conclude that an author character would be able to interact with higher d characters, so long as they show the ability to interact with characters they view as fiction. Because to the author character, a 43d character and 3D character are fundamentally the same. Just fictional. So if they can interact with one, they should be able to interact with the other.

 

[Fixxed]

Does anyone have any good counterpoints to these points from DontTalkDT? I feel they make good points about how metafiction-fiction and dimensionality aren't inherently superior to one another.

from here, and

from here.

I like DT's argument about transduality. Transduality is indeed transcend reality and fiction from it very nature
Then we will make transduality 1A again if that proposal being apply

 

[Vietthai96]

the thing is R > F mean you see something as completely fiction, unreal; adding more dimensions/axes to something fictional, unreal doesn't magically make it turn from being unreal to being real, that what Ultima arguing, equalizing that adding more dimensions = being more real make no sense at all, nor matter how much you adding more, it doesn't stop you from being unreal, that is the different between quantitative and qualitative, and it isn't NLF at all, we currently equalizing R > F = +1 dimension isn't to prevent NLF or because we trying to be accurate, but because we fear, we scare of some verses could get extremely high tier via simple logical train of thoughts

 

[Fixxed]

the thing is R > F mean you see something as completely fiction, unreal; adding more dimensions/axes to something fictional, unreal doesn't magically make it turn from being unreal to being real, that what Ultima arguing, equalizing that adding more dimensions = being more real make no sense at all, nor matter how much you adding more, it doesn't stop you from being unreal, that is the different between quantitative and qualitative, and it isn't NLF at all, we currently equalizing R > F = +1 dimension isn't to prevent NLF or because we trying to be accurate, but because we fear, we scare of some verses could get extremely high tier via simple logical train of thoughts

Well fiction and lower dimensional have some same atribute and same substansial if you brought that to physical reality. Basically fiction is abstract information compare to the physical world, and lower dimensional such as 2D 1D 0D is literally abstract math abstract geometric compare to physical world. They two not really exist in physical sense, they exist just as abstract concept. Making fiction is -1 dimensional is not really a false assumption, even if the two abstraction is different

 

[Udlmaster]

I thought CSAP has math at High 1-B at peak.

No their entire thing is the weirdly made up "Icarcus set" which is the "highest" anything can be, so ofc, they just arbitrarily say their strongest verses scale to it.

I remember seeing a "Most powerful verses in Fiction" locked room in their Discord and they had Final Fantasy at the top with it being the "Icarus Set"

From what I remember, they have this random essay made by this angry Mathematician student where he rants for 93 pages and vaguely mentions an "Icarus set" mid-way through.

There's also the random wiki page with 0 citations which mentions Rank into Rank Axiom Icarus set, but the whole thing is just arbitrary anyway.

 

[Lilixa]

Isn't this wiki concept revolves around philosophical realism concept (there are a lot of school regarding this) ? i guess other than realism those can't be tiered imo. Also what is CSAP ?

 

[Lilixa]

Also if tiering only use classical logics then probably it only has less contradiction.

the problems here if some verse use non classical logic such as dialetheism and trivialism, yeah that would be a problem.

Dialetheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trivialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org